Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Because I have a research design to write (among other things), and only 12 days until my summer break, I'll share a screen shot I took yesterday of the Female Impersonator Site Meter log. I thought it was pretty cool.

Friday, May 14, 2010

I am still reading up on Kagan myself. It's a bit difficult for me to stay fully informed while the last term of my junior year of college is winding down. However, Melissa at Shakesville wrote an informative post before the nomination was official, and here's a link about some of the lesbian rumors that have been coming up around her nomination. If you have any additional links that might provide other useful information about Kagan's nomination, feel free to leave them in comments.

So, while I admit that I am still in the process of learning about Kagan, one thing I can comment on is Bill O'Reilly assertion that knowing the sexual orientation of a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court is important to the American public. The following quote is one I found yesterday on Shakesville (the video can be found here, also via Shakesville).

"Americans have a right to know if their Supreme Court justice has an orientation that may or may not dictate which way she votes on a vital issue. … Don't Americans have a right to know, on something as important as gay marriage, all right, if there is a Supreme Court justice nominee who is in that world?" - Bill O'Reilly

My analysis of this quote goes in line with what Melissa said on her blog. The Supreme Court does not make its decisions based on the personal preferences of the justices. Yes, personal differences in political ideology among justices may impact how they interpret the Constitution when applying it to cases the Court hears, but sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.

It is also important to note that while cases that make it before the Court may end up influencing public policy (such as whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed), creating that policy is not the end of the Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution. The particulars of a case must have the backing of that document for the Justices to make a decision.

Cases heard by the Supreme Court are brought before the Court on very narrow terms, and the only job of the Court is to determine if those terms constitute a violation Constitutionally guaranteed rights. As Melissa noted, Roe v. Wade was decided not based on the fact that the justices liked abortion. It was a matter of the guarantee of privacy and due process that just so happened to make abortion legal in the United States.

And really, it's just annoying for Bill O'Reilly to make such a big deal out of the possibility that Kagan is not heterosexual. If he honestly believed it was such an important thing for the American people to know (as opposed to just a reason to put doubts about her in the minds of those people), then why does he seem unconcerned about the orientation of the other sitting justices?

*This link is to the page for the Solicitor General. While that currently means that the information here is specifically about Kagan, the information found here may no longer be relevant to this post in the future.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Dear owner of the MRA blog whose link lovin' has been sending people our way,I appreciate the new readership. Did you know that a hit on this blog is a hit against the Patriarchy (as Kate once said)? I hope people return here to read more, even if they are finding us on your blog, where your tactics for challenging one of our co-bloggers are (to me) extremely distasteful and do a disservice to the cause you support.Love,Amelia, who stricly moderates comments according to the Female Impersonator comment policy not because she's a misandrist, but because she believes in tact.

Friday, May 7, 2010

**This is the first post of a new series I am starting in order to share some positivity for the bloggers I truly admire. Blogging can be hard work, and these people deserve to have that work acknowledged. I will link to the sites of all these bloggers, and I highly recommend you check them out.**

This week's letter goes out to Melissa, founder and manager of the blog Shakesville.

Dear Melissa,

Thank you for running one of my favorite feminist/progressive blogs ever. I have consistently read Shakesville since I first began identifying as a feminist back in 2007 and have never ceased to be impressed with the quality of posts that are published by you and others at your place. You have also fostered an impressive community that any progressive blogger would be lucky to have.

It is obvious that you work hard to cover many of the bases that should be touched upon in a progressive blog, and you handle yourself in a professional and caring manner that I admire deeply.

Not to mention, your blog, while covering some serious and important issues, is fun. My life would not be the same without "OMG Shoez," "Pathetic Anger Bread," or the "Boob Pistol of Disdain." These things help remind me that I am not alone in dealing with personal insults and general ignorance and hatred for speaking up about my politics, and if you can handle yourself in a constructive manner, so can I.

You are brave, authentic, and you do good work so well. Thank you for starting a blog to which I make sure to send all new feminists that I meet, as well as your continuing efforts to make the world a better place.

The law is the strictest immigration law in the country, and even before it was signed into law, the proposal received heat from critics about its potential impacts. According the The New York Times:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

I have had people debate with me about whether or not this law and its implications are racist. They have all been debates with white people. For example, on May 1 I posted a status on my Facebook account that read: "Do I look 'illegal'?" and quickly I had a white friend of mine respond. I debated with him for a time, and eventually he said, "Also, as cliche as this may be... STEREOTYPES EXIST FOR A REASON!"

To put it briefly, it was his justification for racial profiling. And it disgusted me. He has always held problematic, racist beliefs, but generally he keeps them to himself. It was as if he took this status of mine as an opportunity to let loose all of his hatred.

For this reason, the Arizona law, at the very least, is prompting racist individuals to be loud and proud about their bigotry in a new, heightened manner. As an Hispanic American (born in the states) whose father was born in Mexico, and an individual who is deeply against racism directed at any people, this disturbs me deeply. Go ahead and argue the legality of the law. What can't be denied is that this has prompted a fresh wave of attacks against a group of people based on their legal status as related to their skin color.

EDIT 5/5/10: I'm going to put a trigger warning in effect for the comments. I had moderation off and some got through before I was able to get back at my computer. They will stay up because people have responded to them.